As long as their beliefs do not impinge on others then no. However, in too many states where laws are based on Islam, it leads to intolerance (e.g people being put to death for apostasy), subjugation of women and brutality.

Quote:

Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists. Who among them renounces their holy texts?

It's not a matter of renouncing Holy Texts, but allowing them to be assessed and criticised. Arguing that the Koran is not the 'literal' word of Allah will get you killed in many muslim countries. Arguing the same about the Bible is par for the course in the West.

If you take the example of apostasy, which requires a sentence of death under Islamic strictures, it is very hard to argue against it based on Islamic principles, due to the Koran's inflexibility.

Quote:

Nothing has been renounced, yet you are calling for Muslims to renounce passages from the Koran

I'm not calling for muslims to wholesale renounce the Koran. A starting point would be not putting death sentences on people who question the literalism of the Koran. At the moment this is impossible in most Islamic societies. Let us not forget that Hirsi Ali is living under a death sentence because she renounced Islam.

Quote:

only a minority of Muslims support bin Laden's declared Jihad.

I presume you have some evidence to back up this assertion. That depends which country you're talking about and whether they agree with his aims, or his means. In many parts of the Islamic world he is regarded as a hero.

Quote:

YOU want Muslims to "renounce" passages of their holy book while there really is no historical precedent for that in any major religion.

Why do you keep using the word 'renounce'. I am asking that people, muslims and non-muslims be allowed to challenge the literalism of the Koran, and to question whether the behaviour of a bedouin tribesmen who lived over a millenia ago represent a worthy model for the modern world.

Christians and Jews have been arguing over whether the Bible should be interpreted literally or not for centuries. Muslims have not. Why? Because if they did, they would be Rushdied. That is the difference.

As long as their beliefs do not impinge on others then no. However, in too many states where laws are based on Islam, it leads to intolerance (e.g people being put to death for apostasy), subjugation of women and brutality.

But haven't you said, repeatedly, that all of Islam is following the Koran word-by-word?

Yes.

Quote:

Quote:
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists. Who among them renounces their holy texts?

It's not a matter of renouncing Holy Texts, but allowing them to be assessed and criticised. Arguing that the Koran is not the 'literal' word of Allah will get you killed in many muslim countries. Arguing the same about the Bible is par for the course in the West.

And does that mean it's being interpreted uniformly?

Quote:

If you take the example of apostasy, which requires a sentence of death under Islamic strictures, it is very hard to argue against it based on Islamic principles, due to the Koran's inflexibility.

And in practice? Why do Muslims have to argue "against" the Koran? How many Christians argue "against" the Bible?

Quote:

Quote:
Nothing has been renounced, yet you are calling for Muslims to renounce passages from the Koran

I'm not calling for muslims to wholesale renounce the Koran. A starting point would be not putting death sentences on people who question the literalism of the Koran. At the moment this is impossible in most Islamic societies. Let us not forget that Hirsi Ali is living under a death sentence because she renounced Islam.

I didn't say you were calling for the wholesale renunciation of the Koran. You added that bit.

I presume you have some evidence to back up this assertion. That depends which country you're talking about and whether they agree with his aims, or his means. In many parts of the Islamic world he is regarded as a hero.

Well, you could start with the fact that millions of people are not following his call for Jihad. Labeling people by their country is a bad habit, but it's better than labeling a religion, as you've done repeatedly.

Quote:

Quote:
YOU want Muslims to "renounce" passages of their holy book while there really is no historical precedent for that in any major religion.

Why do you keep using the word 'renounce'.

See your own posts.

Quote:

I am asking that people, muslims and non-muslims be allowed to challenge the literalism of the Koran, and to question whether the behaviour of a bedouin tribesmen who lived over a millenia ago represent a worthy model for the modern world.

And it's you, despite a body of evidence, claiming that the Koran is taken literally word by word. It does suit your purposes, but it's not grounded in fact.

Quote:

Christians and Jews have been arguing over whether the Bible should be interpreted literally or not for centuries. Muslims have not. Why? Because if they did, they would be Rushdied. That is the difference.

So, Islamic scholars are to be pidgeon-holed by you?

You, who ignores all of the incorrect statements you've made, whether it's about clothing or how many Muslims want to kill you, and then have the gall to take it upon yourself to interpret Islam for an actual Muslim who has persistently disagreed with your flawed, poorly-researched, hysterical, absurd assertions about Islam.

Isn't that true anytime a fundamentalist sect of a religion gains power?

But that's the point. This so-called sect is the mainstream of Islam, as written in the Koran, the hadith and codified in Shariah Law. It is not some mysterious abberation, or 'corruption' of Islam, but the practice of Islam itself. This sect holds power in the birthplace of the religion Saudi Arabia, in Iran, one of the most populous muslim nations, and in Sudan. In all three of these nations, the state is governed according to the strictures of Islam, and the results are there for all to see.

But haven't you said, repeatedly, that all of Islam is following the Koran word-by-word?

No, what I said that is that muslims are taught to believe that the Koran is the untainted, unchanged, final word of God. This makes challenging some of the more 'unpleasant' verses within it problematic.

Quote:

Why do Muslims have to argue "against" the Koran?

I didn't say they had to argue against it, but I do believe they should be free to question it, if they so choose. Do you believe in freedom of conscience?

Quote:

How many Christians argue "against" the Bible?

You're simplifying things yet again. At the moment, there are huge, and very controversial debates in both the catholic and protestant churches regarding women priests, homosexuality, contraception and so on. Some Christians profess literalism, other a more nuanced version of the scriptures. This is simply impossible in muslim countries at the moment.

Let's stick to facts. Hirsi Ali is living under a death sentence, as too is Salman Rushdie. This is not exaggeration. But keep ignoring the facts if it pleases you.

Quote:

millions of people are not following his call for Jihad

This depends upon your definition of 'following'. If you mean actually engaging in terrorist operations against the West then you are probably right. However, clerics throughout the world who echo his message play to packed mosques everyday of the week in muslim nations. If only 1% of muslims supported Bin Laden (and that's a low estimate) that would still be 10 million people.

Quote:

You, who ignores all of the incorrect statements you've made, whether it's about clothing

I stated that women in most muslim countries are not free to dress as they wish, due to laws or societal pressure. The statement is not 'incorrect' in the slightest.

Quote:

have the gall to take it upon yourself to interpret Islam

Well, we can't have infidels criticising Islam now can we. Islam is a philosophy, an ideology, and is as open criticism as any other ideology.

All I have stated is that the accepted literalism of the Koran, and the example of the prophet Mohammed provide plenty of justification for oppression, violence and brutality, which can be seen all over the Islamic world. Intolerance against minorities, subjugation of women, and oppression occur in worrying frequency throughout the Islamic world, not inspite of Islam, but because of it.

This sect holds power in the birthplace of the religion Saudi Arabia, in Iran, one of the most populous muslim nations, and in Sudan. In all three of these nations, the state is governed according to the strictures of Islam, and the results are there for all to see

But it does not hold power in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Stans, or Indonesia. (I might be wrong on one or two of those.) They are secular states to one degree or another.

Let's try it from a differernt angle. Think Italy. The home of the Pope. Officially, Italy is a Catholic country. Do all Italians diligently follow the Pope's edicts? No. Nonsense. There are all sorts of levels of belief and commitment to religion, even in an officially Catholic country. Why is it so hard for you to believe the same is true in Moslem countries? I can't prove it, but I'll bet there are even, horrors!, atheists in some Moslem countries.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the radical fundamentalists are a threat. What we're disagreeing with is you calling everyone a threat because of the actions of a few.

But it does not hold power in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Stans, or Indonesia. (I might be wrong on one or two of those.) They are secular states to one degree or another.

I'll give you Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and some parts of Malaysia as being reasonably moderate. The rest are secular in name only, and in most of them Islamists hold great sway over education, the courts and the political process.

In all countries women are oppressed, sometimes horribly, and life for religious minorities is unpleasant to say the least. In those two great 'secular' states of Bangladesh and Pakistan, Christians are murdered with a frightening frequency, and even in Egypt Christians are treated as second class citizens. It is hardly surprising that the more moderate states are ones where muslims do not make up an overwhelming percentage of the population (Lebanon, Malaysia), or where Islam has been actively surpressed (Turkey, Libya).

In Indonesia, another state you mentioned, Shariah Law is in place in some parts of the country, and Christians have suffered persecution for many years. Just ask the East Timorese.

To say any of these states are truly 'secular' is highly amusing. There is a clear correlation between Islam and democracy, religious freedom and women's rights, and with the growth of Islam across the muslim world, all of these things are likely to fall by the wayside.

Officially, Italy is a Catholic country. Do all Italians diligently follow the Pope's edicts? No.

Italy is a secular country and people are free to follow what religion or ideology they choose. In most muslim nations, due to laws or societal norms this is simply not possible.

From 'secular' Egypt:

"Whether she has to divorce her husband or not, is not important. What matters is that she should keep her opinions to herself, because they are against Islam. These opinions are poison for Muslims," he added.

'On May 8, 1994 Father Henri Vergès, aged 64, and Sister Paule-Hélène Saint-Raymond, aged 67, were murdered as they left the Catholic Library where they were engaged in their work for young people. The library, placed at the people’s disposal by the archbishop of Algiers, is in the Casbah - it provides educational support for the students, organises computer courses, and also distributes basic necessities to the poorest of the people.

In the town of Kabyli di Tizi Ouzo, four missionaries of the White Fathers (three Frenchmen and one Belgian) were brutally murdered on December 27 1994.

On Sunday September 3 1995 two nuns were assassinated in Algiers. They were Sister Bibiane Leclerc and Sister Angèle-Marie Littlejohn, aged 65 and 62 respectively. Both had lived in Algiers since 1964.

Bishop Pierre Claverie of Oran was killed by a bomb on August 1 1996, together with his driver Muhammed Pouchikhi. Pierre Claverie had dedicated his life to promoting dialogue between Islam and Christianity;'